Problems setting MySQL for the human task process server....
by Cristiano Gavião
Hi,
I was trying to change the persistence settings for human task process
server for using MySQL instead of H2DB.
I was following the Drools Flows Documentation on chapter 5.1.3.:
Configuring Persistence.(https://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/drools/lastSuccessfulBui...
#d0e1157)
I read on docs that I should override the persistence.xml of the
drools-process-enterprise.jar, create the drools.session.conf with
some contents (i don`t undestand` what it is...) and put them on my
project META-INF directory... ok?
I created the files as stated on docs but it didn't work... My
example runned ok, but using the H2DB and not my MYSQL.
// Use persistence.xml configuration
emf =
Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("org.drools.persistence.jpa");
taskService = new TaskService(emf);
taskSession = taskService.createSession();
server = new MinaTaskServer(taskService);
Thread thread = new Thread(server);
thread.start();
Thread.sleep(500);
System.out.println("Server started ...");
<properties>
<property name="hibernate.dialect"
value="org.hibernate.dialect.MySQL5Dialect" />
<property name="hibernate.connection.driver_class"
value="com.mysql.jdbc.Driver" />
<property name="hibernate.connection.url" value="jdbc:mysql://
localhost/drools" />
<property name="hibernate.connection.username" value="root" />
<property name="hibernate.connection.password" value="" />
<property name="hibernate.connection.autocommit" value="false" />
<property name="hibernate.max_fetch_depth" value="3" />
<property name="hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto" value="create-drop" />
<property name="hibernate.show_sql" value="true" />
</properties>
After some investigation I could see that the example recommended by
Mark Proctor (TaskLifeCycleTest.java, and others that use
MinaTaskServer) use <persistence-unit name = "org.drools.task"> that
is setting on drools-process-task.jar and not the
"org.drools.persistence.jpa" on drools-process-enterprise.jar as
stated on documentation...
First question, which one should I use for use the Drools Flows Server
and Client?
emf =
Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory( "org.drools.task" );
emf =
Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("org.drools.persistence.jpa");
I test the first option. I changed the persistence.xml file and use
the code below:
// Use persistence.xml configuration
emf = Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("org.drools.task");
taskService = new TaskService(emf);
taskSession = taskService.createSession();
server = new MinaTaskServer(taskService);
Thread thread = new Thread(server);
thread.start();
Thread.sleep(500);
System.out.println("Server started ...");
Hummm.... It runs and connect well to my MySQL. but now it brings me a
error...
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Named query not found:
UnescalatedDeadlines
at
org
.hibernate
.ejb
.AbstractEntityManagerImpl
.createNamedQuery(AbstractEntityManagerImpl.java:108)
at org.drools.task.service.TaskService.<init>(TaskService.java:84)
at org.drools.task.service.TaskService.<init>(TaskService.java:68)
It sounds like it was not possible to find orm.xml that is on META-INF
of drools-process-task.jar.
But when I copy the orm.xml file to my project META-INF it works ok....
Could someone give some ideas how can I solve this problem..
Thanks a lot
Cristiano
16 years, 9 months
Unable to resolve object reference
by Narendra Valada
Hello,
I am getting "Unable to resolve object reference" on certain inner classes.
I seem to get this error on inner classes that have been defined within other inner classes.
Since I am using XML Beans, I am not able to reference some of the generated classes due to this limitation.
Is this a known limitation of JBoss Rules or is it a limitation of the JANINO compiler?
Here is a example:
package com.sample;
public class Outer {
public class Inner {
public boolean inner=false;
public class InnerInner {
}
}
}
Here is the rule:
package com.sample
import com.sample.Outer.Inner.InnerInner;
rule "Hello World 1"
when
InnerInner()
then
System.out.println("");
end
16 years, 9 months
Re: [rules-users] CEP Rule Help Needed
by Greg Barton
So do you mean this didn't work:
myWorkingMemoryEP = ksession.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint(correlatorName);
for (Fact a : Facts)
ksession.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint(correlatorName).insert(a);
...but this did?
myWorkingMemoryEP = ksession.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint(correlatorName);
for (Fact a : Facts)
myWorkingMemoryEP.insert(a);
--- On Thu, 7/23/09, Nestor Tarin Burriel <nestabur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Nestor Tarin Burriel <nestabur(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] CEP Rule Help Needed
> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 9:47 AM
> Finally I've solved my problem. It
> was in the engine:
>
> Looking the doc, for inserting a new fact into a stream of
> the working memory says:
>
> ksession.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint("MyEntryPoint").insert();
>
>
> Which is perfect but not for my enviroment ;), I was
> inserting the events in differents WM cause in each one I
> did
> ksession.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint("MyEntryPoint").insert(myFact);
> so I solved it doing:
>
>
> myWorkingMemoryEP =
> ksession.getWorkingMemoryEntryPoint(correlatorName);
>
> for (Fact a : Facts)
> myWorkingMemoryEP.insert(a);
>
> I dont know if this is the correct use of EntryPoints bu it
> works!
>
>
> Thanks to everybody especially Greg and Priya :)
>
> 2009/7/23 PriyaKathan <nash.8103(a)gmail.com>
>
> Hi
>
> Find attached working example for CEP rule with the
> scenario you stated.Here I used Psuedo
> clock.Hope this would help you to understand
> better.
> Regards,
>
> Priya
>
> 2009/7/23 Nestor Tarin Burriel
> <nestabur(a)gmail.com>
>
>
> Hi again Greg,
>
> I've tried your suggestion and it seems like the facts
> that is the rule checking are the same.
>
> This is my last try:
>
> rule "SnortRuleRetract"
> dialect "mvel"
>
>
>
> when
> $s1 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan)
> Open Port")
> $s2 : Snort ( sig_name !=
> "(portscan) Open Port" , id != $s1.id)
> then
>
>
> retract($s2);
>
> System.out.println(" ********* Deleting
> from WM");
> end
>
> And is never fired ...
>
> There are no more rules in the package, this is the only
> one ... so I don't understand anything ... could be the
> error in the engine? I dont retract any fact ... as you can
> see in my code ...
>
>
>
>
> NEStor
>
> 2009/7/23 Nestor Tarin Burriel
> <nestabur(a)gmail.com>
>
>
>
> Yes, that is the purpose ;)
>
> I will try ;)
>
> Thanks 4 your help
>
> 2009/7/22 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ah, overlooked that second rule. Have you tried the
> overlap operator?
>
>
>
> So, just to clarify, the purpose of the two rules should
> be:
>
>
>
> SnortRule: If two Snort events that are not port scans of
> an open port on the same destination arrive more than 5
> minutes apart, delete the earlier one.
>
>
>
> SnortRuleRetract: If two Snort events that are not port
> scans of an open port on any two destinations arrive within
> 5 minutes of each other, delete the earlier one.
>
>
>
> Have you tried removing the temporal operators completely,
> just for testing purposes? What happens? i.e.
>
>
>
> "TimelessSnortRule"
>
> $s1 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan)
> Open Port") from entry-point "Correlator"
>
> $s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan)
> Open Port" , id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst) from
> entry-point "Correlator"
>
>
>
> "TimelessSnortRuleRetract"
>
> $s1 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan)
> Open Port") from entry-point "Correlator"
>
> $s2 : Snort ( sig_name !=
> "(portscan) Open Port" , id != $s1.id) from
> entry-point "Correlator"
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/22/09, Nestor Tarin Burriel <nestabur(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Nestor Tarin Burriel <nestabur(a)gmail.com>
>
> > Subject: Re: [rules-users] CEP Rule Help Needed
>
> > To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>
> > Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 1:47 PM
>
> > Thanks Greg,
>
> >
>
> > As you can see in the code I sent, I have the 2
>
> > implementations:
>
> >
>
> > "SnortRule"
>
> >
>
> > $s1 : Snort( sig_name !=
>
> > "(portscan) Open Port") from entry-point
>
> > "Correlator"
>
> >
>
> > $s2 : Snort( sig_name !=
> "(portscan)
>
> > Open Port" , id != $s1.id, ip_dst ==
> $s1.ip_dst, this
>
> > after [5m] $s1) from entry-point
> "Correlator"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "SnortRuleRetract"
>
> > $s1 : Snort( sig_name !=
>
> > "(portscan) Open Port") from entry-point
>
> > "Correlator"
>
> > $s2 : Snort ( sig_name !=
> "(portscan)
>
> > Open Port" , id != $s1.id, this after
> [0m,5m] $s1) from
>
> > entry-point "Correlator"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > and any of them are thrown
>
> >
>
> > ...
>
> >
>
> > 2009/7/22 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Maybe this is a problem of language. Here's what
> you
>
> > say the rule should do:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 'After receiving a fact "MyModel" wich
> name
>
> > != "aaa", if arrives another
>
> >
>
> > with same ip and different id after a
>
> > period between 0 and 5 minutes the
>
> >
>
> > rule have to retract the last one and keep the first
>
> > fact (the older one)'
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Which I would interpret as "Event 1 comes in,
> then
>
> > event 2 comes in between 0 and 5 minutes later."
> Does
>
> > that sound right?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And here's the rule that you think fits the
>
> > requirements:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > rule "SnortRule"
>
> >
>
> > salience 2
>
> >
>
> > dialect "mvel"
>
> >
>
> > when
>
> >
>
> > $s1 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan)
> Open
>
> > Port") from entry-point "Correlator"
>
> >
>
> > $s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan)
> Open
>
> > Port" , id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this
>
> > after [5m] $s1) from entry-point
> "Correlator"
>
> >
>
> > then
>
> >
>
> >
> System.out.println("******************
>
> > Snort Alert!!!!" + $s1.getData());
>
> >
>
> > retract($s1);
>
> >
>
> > end
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Check out the docs, though:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > https://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/drools/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/t...
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The after operator in this case would check that (5m
> <=
>
> > $s2.startTimestamp - $s1.endTimeStamp <=
> +infinity).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So the rule actually implements "Event 1 comes
> in,
>
> > then event 2 happens at leat 5 minutes later."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If you use the second argument of after I think it
> would
>
> > work:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > $s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open
> Port" ,
>
> > id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this
>
> > after [0m,5m] $s1) from entry-point
> "Correlator"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > According to the docs this should check that (0m
> <=
>
> > $s2.startTimestamp - $s1.endTimeStamp <= 5m).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You could alternately use "overlaps".
> Place an
>
> > @duration(5m) annotation on the Snort declaration and
> try
>
> > this condition:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > $s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open
> Port" ,
>
> > id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this
>
> > overlaps $s1) from entry-point "Correlator"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > rules-users mailing list
>
> >
>
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> >
>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > rules-users mailing list
>
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> rules-users mailing list
>
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> rules-users mailing list
>
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> PriyaKathan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> rules-users mailing list
>
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
16 years, 9 months
Re: [rules-users] CEP Rule Help Needed
by Greg Barton
Ah, overlooked that second rule. Have you tried the overlap operator?
So, just to clarify, the purpose of the two rules should be:
SnortRule: If two Snort events that are not port scans of an open port on the same destination arrive more than 5 minutes apart, delete the earlier one.
SnortRuleRetract: If two Snort events that are not port scans of an open port on any two destinations arrive within 5 minutes of each other, delete the earlier one.
Have you tried removing the temporal operators completely, just for testing purposes? What happens? i.e.
"TimelessSnortRule"
$s1 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port") from entry-point "Correlator"
$s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port" , id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst) from entry-point "Correlator"
"TimelessSnortRuleRetract"
$s1 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port") from entry-point "Correlator"
$s2 : Snort ( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port" , id != $s1.id) from entry-point "Correlator"
--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Nestor Tarin Burriel <nestabur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Nestor Tarin Burriel <nestabur(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] CEP Rule Help Needed
> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 1:47 PM
> Thanks Greg,
>
> As you can see in the code I sent, I have the 2
> implementations:
>
> "SnortRule"
>
> $s1 : Snort( sig_name !=
> "(portscan) Open Port") from entry-point
> "Correlator"
>
> $s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan)
> Open Port" , id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this
> after [5m] $s1) from entry-point "Correlator"
>
>
> "SnortRuleRetract"
> $s1 : Snort( sig_name !=
> "(portscan) Open Port") from entry-point
> "Correlator"
> $s2 : Snort ( sig_name != "(portscan)
> Open Port" , id != $s1.id, this after [0m,5m] $s1) from
> entry-point "Correlator"
>
>
> and any of them are thrown
>
> ...
>
> 2009/7/22 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
>
>
>
> Maybe this is a problem of language. Here's what you
> say the rule should do:
>
>
>
> 'After receiving a fact "MyModel" wich name
> != "aaa", if arrives another
>
> with same ip and different id after a
> period between 0 and 5 minutes the
>
> rule have to retract the last one and keep the first
> fact (the older one)'
>
>
>
> Which I would interpret as "Event 1 comes in, then
> event 2 comes in between 0 and 5 minutes later." Does
> that sound right?
>
>
>
> And here's the rule that you think fits the
> requirements:
>
>
>
> rule "SnortRule"
>
> salience 2
>
> dialect "mvel"
>
> when
>
> $s1 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open
> Port") from entry-point "Correlator"
>
> $s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open
> Port" , id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this
> after [5m] $s1) from entry-point "Correlator"
>
> then
>
> System.out.println("******************
> Snort Alert!!!!" + $s1.getData());
>
> retract($s1);
>
> end
>
>
>
> Check out the docs, though:
>
>
>
> https://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/drools/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/t...
>
>
>
>
> The after operator in this case would check that (5m <=
> $s2.startTimestamp - $s1.endTimeStamp <= +infinity).
>
>
>
> So the rule actually implements "Event 1 comes in,
> then event 2 happens at leat 5 minutes later."
>
>
>
> If you use the second argument of after I think it would
> work:
>
>
>
> $s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port" ,
> id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this
> after [0m,5m] $s1) from entry-point "Correlator"
>
>
>
> According to the docs this should check that (0m <=
> $s2.startTimestamp - $s1.endTimeStamp <= 5m).
>
>
>
> You could alternately use "overlaps". Place an
> @duration(5m) annotation on the Snort declaration and try
> this condition:
>
>
>
> $s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port" ,
> id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this
> overlaps $s1) from entry-point "Correlator"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> rules-users mailing list
>
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
16 years, 9 months
Webguided decision table and nested objects
by Wishing Carebear
Hello:
I have a facts objects with nested objects : example:
Employee
name
Address
street
city
Wondering if it is possible to use Webguided decision table at the nested
object level (in the above example Address.street)
Thanks,
cabear
16 years, 9 months
Re: [rules-users] CEP Rule Help Needed
by Greg Barton
Without @timestamp the event time is the insertion time.
--- On Thu, 7/23/09, PriyaKathan <nash.8103(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: PriyaKathan <nash.8103(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] CEP Rule Help Needed
> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 12:37 AM
> Hi,
> I found one thing missing here...It
> is @timestamp in event declaration...
16 years, 9 months
Re: [rules-users] CEP Rule Help Needed
by Greg Barton
Maybe this is a problem of language. Here's what you say the rule should do:
'After receiving a fact "MyModel" wich name != "aaa", if arrives another
with same ip and different id after a period between 0 and 5 minutes the
rule have to retract the last one and keep the first fact (the older one)'
Which I would interpret as "Event 1 comes in, then event 2 comes in between 0 and 5 minutes later." Does that sound right?
And here's the rule that you think fits the requirements:
rule "SnortRule"
salience 2
dialect "mvel"
when
$s1 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port") from entry-point "Correlator"
$s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port" , id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this after [5m] $s1) from entry-point "Correlator"
then
System.out.println("****************** Snort Alert!!!!" + $s1.getData());
retract($s1);
end
Check out the docs, though:
https://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/drools/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/t...
The after operator in this case would check that (5m <= $s2.startTimestamp - $s1.endTimeStamp <= +infinity).
So the rule actually implements "Event 1 comes in, then event 2 happens at leat 5 minutes later."
If you use the second argument of after I think it would work:
$s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port" , id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this after [0m,5m] $s1) from entry-point "Correlator"
According to the docs this should check that (0m <= $s2.startTimestamp - $s1.endTimeStamp <= 5m).
You could alternately use "overlaps". Place an @duration(5m) annotation on the Snort declaration and try this condition:
$s2 : Snort( sig_name != "(portscan) Open Port" , id != $s1.id, ip_dst == $s1.ip_dst, this overlaps $s1) from entry-point "Correlator"
16 years, 9 months
Re: [rules-users] DSL matching return wrong DRL
by Matt Geis
The question has already been answered, but to help you understand how DSL expansion works, here's what happens.
1. The expander goes down the list and matches the first expression against all lines in your rules. So,
rule dsl2drl_1
when
Get month summer
then
Print months;
end
becomes
rule dsl2drl_1
when
$month: Month(); summer
then
Print months;
end
2. The expander tries to match the second expression, and fails.
3. The expander tries to match the third expression, and succeeds, leaving you with the following DRL.
rule dsl2drl_1
when
$month: Month(); summer
then
System.out.println("Month: " + $month.getId());;
end
Looking at the LHS of the rule, this will not compile.
Matt
16 years, 9 months
Re: [rules-users] CEP Rule Help Needed
by Greg Barton
--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Nestor Tarin Burriel <nestabur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> So I dont understand why my CEP rules never fires ...
Ah, the eternal lament of the rules developer. :)
Have you tried removing conditions until it does fire?
16 years, 9 months
Re: [rules-users] optimization on a lot of simple rules
by Greg Barton
There's no reason why you have to process all of your rules at once, or in one way. For instance, if the processing of this large set of "what's the decision" rules depend on nothing else, there's no reason they can't be in their own ruleset and processed separately in a StatelessKnowledgeSession. The results can then be passed to the rest of the rules.
In addition, if you do have other rules, then your testing setup is unrealistic. (i.e. throwing in one instance of each type, processing the rules, then retracting them all.)
--- On Tue, 7/21/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com> wrote:
> From: nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] optimization on a lot of simple rules
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 12:44 AM
>
> Agree, but I can't choose sequential mode for several
> reason.
> Sequential mode means StatelessKnowledgeSession.
> 1. every request needs to create a new session(working
> memory).
> 2. our ruleset has other rules.
> 3. with StatefulKnowledgeSession, some facts can be
> initialized before
> process the request.
> 4. Agenda is needed.
>
> Thanks very much.
>
>
> Greg Barton wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, if your rules are going to be that simple, have
> you tried sequential
> > mode? If there's never any reaction to working
> memory changes you don't
> > need the rete network. You should get much
> better performance out of that
> > ruleset, and others like it, in sequential mode.
> >
> > See
> > http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.0.1.26597.FINAL/drools-expert/ht...,
> > section "3.3.7.1. Sequential Mode"
> >
> > In a nutshell, the rete network is used for tracking
> and reacting to
> > changes in the objects inserted into working memory.
> (i.e. a rule fires,
> > changes a WM object, then other rules may be eligible
> to fire based on
> > that change.) If you're not going to be using that
> functionality you'd be
> > constructing and maintaining the rete for no
> reason.
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/20/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] optimization on a lot
> of simple rules
> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 10:13 PM
> >>
> >> I execute above test codes, with 100 rules running
> 1000
> >> times. In the same
> >> time, I profile the test codes.
> >> http://www.nabble.com/file/p24581025/profile.jpg
> >> The profile result shows that some methods execute
> 100,000
> >> times.
> >> In test codes,
> >> Service has two states, 0 or 1.
> >> Subscriber has two states, 0 or 1.
> >>
> >> inserted facts:
> >> Product product = new Product(1, 1);
> >> Service service = new Service(1);
> >> Subscriber subscriber = new Subscriber(1);
> >>
> >> Service matches a half of total rules, namely 50.
> So is
> >> Subscriber.
> >> (50 + 50 ) * 1000 (running times) = 100,000
> >>
> >> I am confused what drools does. Is there a way to
> optimize
> >> it?
> >>
> >>
> >> Greg Barton wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1) Yes, if you eliminate joins in rules, you
> will have
> >> no joins in the
> >> > rete. This is self evident.
> >> >
> >> > 2) The way you have the rules structured,
> there is no
> >> relationship between
> >> > the joined objects. This will cause what's
> >> called a "cartesian join"
> >> > where all combinations of all instances of
> each object
> >> type are
> >> > instantiated. This can be very expensive,
> memory
> >> and CPU wise. You've
> >> > stated that there are only one instance of
> each object
> >> type in working
> >> > memory, but are you absolutely sure of
> that?
> >> Cartesian joins can easily
> >> > cause performance problems quite quickly.
> >> >
> >> > For instance, say you've got these objects in
> working
> >> memory:
> >> >
> >> > Subscriber(gender="male")
> >> > Subscriber(gender="female")
> >> > Service(name="ftp")
> >> > Service(name="http")
> >> > Product(id=1)
> >> > Product(id=2)
> >> > Product(id=3)
> >> >
> >> > After inserting a Decision into working
> memory, the
> >> rule will fire 2*2*3
> >> > times. (#Subscribers * #Services *
> #Products)
> >> This is by design. Is this
> >> > what you want?
> >> >
> >> > 3) Do you really need the 'Subscriber(gender
> == "male"
> >> or "female")' term?
> >> > Why not just 'Subscriber()'? Are you
> classifying
> >> transgendered or
> >> > nonhuman subscribers in your system?
> >> >
> >> > --- On Mon, 7/20/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com>
> >> >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] optimization
> on a lot
> >> of simple rules
> >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 10:22 AM
> >> >>
> >> >> I want to test the matching performance
> of drools.
> >> As I
> >> >> mentioned that there
> >> >> are a lot of rules and the rule is
> like:
> >> >> rule 1
> >> >> when
> >> >> Decision()
> >> >> Subscriber(gender ==
> >> >> "male" or "female")
> >> >> Service(name ==
> >> >> "ftp" or "http")
> >> >> Product(id == 1)
> >> >> ......
> >> >> then
> >> >> end
> >> >>
> >> >> After test, more condition elements under
> when,
> >> more time
> >> >> needs to execute
> >> >> the test.
> >> >> for example
> >> >> Location ( location == "home" or
> "office")
> >> >> and so on.
> >> >> So I worry about the matching performance
> with
> >> drools.
> >> >>
> >> >> I found that a lot of JoinNodes would be
> executed
> >> in
> >> >> runtime. I mean if
> >> >> there is 1000 rules, there will be a lot
> of
> >> JoinNodes
> >> >> (There are at least
> >> >> 1000 JoinNodes between Decision and
> Product ). And
> >> it
> >> >> exactly affects the
> >> >> execution performance.
> >> >>
> >> >> As you know, Decision, Product, Servcie
> and so on
> >> are plan
> >> >> Java classes. If
> >> >> I define all of attributes of above
> classes in one
> >> class
> >> >> named WholeFact,
> >> >> only one Java Type, there is no mentioned
> issue.
> >> >>
> >> >> With WholeFact class, the rule will be
> changed as
> >> follows:
> >> >> rule 1
> >> >> when
> >> >> WholeFact(
> >> >> subscriberGender == "male" or "female",
> >> >>
> >> >> serviceName
> >> >> == "ftp" or "http",
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> productId == 1 or 2 or 3 ...
> >> >> )
> >> >> then
> >> >> end
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Greg Barton wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now this finally rises to something
> that
> >> needs rules.
> >> >> :) In all of the
> >> >> > previous examples you've given you
> could just
> >> have a
> >> >> > Map<ProductKey,Handler> where
> the
> >> Handler looks
> >> >> like this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > interface Handler {
> >> >> > void handle(Product product,
> Decision
> >> >> decision);
> >> >> > }
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...and the ProductKey consists of
> properties
> >> that
> >> >> uniquely identify how
> >> >> > the Product is handled. So, on
> it's own,
> >> that
> >> >> functionality did not
> >> >> > require rules.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, now that you've introduced
> more
> >> complex
> >> >> decisions, with varying
> >> >> > data, to affect the Decision for
> each
> >> Property type,
> >> >> rules are more
> >> >> > appropriate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is there any reason why you only
> have one of
> >> each
> >> >> object type in memory at
> >> >> > one time? Maybe if you state more
> of the
> >> problem
> >> >> requirements we can help
> >> >> > you better.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --- On Mon, 7/20/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> From: nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com>
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [rules-users]
> optimization
> >> on a lot
> >> >> of simple rules
> >> >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> >> Date: Monday, July 20, 2009,
> 4:14 AM
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks very much.
> >> >> >> But if for every rule, there is
> one
> >> algorithm or
> >> >> discount
> >> >> >> which means that
> >> >> >> result has nothing related with
> Product's
> >> id and
> >> >> usage. I
> >> >> >> can't merge all
> >> >> >> rules in one rule. At the same
> time,
> >> besides
> >> >> Product and
> >> >> >> Decision fact type,
> >> >> >> there are more fact types.
> >> >> >> For example:
> >> >> >> rule 1
> >> >> >> when
> >> >> >> Decision()
> >> >> >> Subscriber(gender
> ==
> >> >> >> "male" or "female")
> >> >> >> Service(name ==
> >> >> >> "ftp" or "http")
> >> >> >> Product(id == 1)
> >> >> >> ......
> >> >> >> then
> >> >> >> ......
> >> >> >> end
> >> >> >> rule 2
> >> >> >> when
> >> >> >> Decision()
> >> >> >> Subscriber(gender
> ==
> >> >> >> "male" or "female")
> >> >> >> Service(name ==
> >> >> >> "ftp" or "http")
> >> >> >> Product(id == 2)
> >> >> >> ......
> >> >> >> then
> >> >> >> ......
> >> >> >> end
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> .....
> >> >> >> .....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In this scenario, if there are
> 1000
> >> rules, there
> >> >> will
> >> >> >> be a lot of JoinNode.
> >> >> >> But in runtime, there is only
> one
> >> Decision
> >> >> instance, one
> >> >> >> Subscriber instance
> >> >> >> and Service instance.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If I define all data in one fact
> type, I
> >> think
> >> >> that there
> >> >> >> are not a lot of
> >> >> >> JoinNodes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is there any other method?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wolfgang Laun-2 wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Well, what is the realtion
> between
> >> id, usage
> >> >> and the
> >> >> >> result that's to be
> >> >> >> > stored in a Decision or a
> global?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Typically, such rules could
> be
> >> written as
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > rule x
> >> >> >> > no-loop true
> >> >> >> > when
> >> >> >> > $d : Decision()
> >> >> >> > $p :Product( id ==
> 1, $usage
> >> :
> >> >> >> usage )
> >> >> >> > then
> >> >> >> > compute/store
> value,
> >> depending
> >> >> >> on the formula for id == 1
> (using
> >> >> >> > usage)
> >> >> >> > end
> >> >> >> > // similar rule for id ==
> 2,3,...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If value is a
> straightforward
> >> function of id
> >> >> (and
> >> >> >> usage), then implement a
> >> >> >> > function compValue and use
> a single
> >> rule,
> >> >> e.g.:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > rule x
> >> >> >> > no-loop true
> >> >> >> > when
> >> >> >> > $d : Decision()
> >> >> >> > Product( $id : id,
> $usage :
> >> >> >> usage)
> >> >> >> > then
> >> >> >> > modify $d value to
> compValue(
> >> $id,
> >> >> $usage
> >> >> >> )
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Distinguishing all
> individual
> >> combinations of
> >> >> id and
> >> >> >> usage on the LHS
> >> >> >> > seems
> >> >> >> > excessive.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The ordering of CEs also
> affects
> >> execution
> >> >> times.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > -W
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On 7/20/09, nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In this scenario, there
> are
> >> 1000
> >> >> products,
> >> >> >> different product has
> >> >> >> >> different
> >> >> >> >> price, besides this,
> the price
> >> is
> >> >> affected by
> >> >> >> usage. I want to use
> >> >> >> >> Product.id to match the
> rules.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As you mentioned "The
> crude
> >> duplication
> >> >> of rules
> >> >> >> where only the constant
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> be matched with
> >> >> >> >> Product.id varies can,
> most
> >> likely, be
> >> >> avoided."
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> How to avoid it in
> this
> >> scenario?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Laun-2 wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > It's difficult to
> suggest
> >> an
> >> >> optimized form
> >> >> >> for your rules 1-infinity,
> >> >> >> >> > since
> >> >> >> >> > we do not know
> what you
> >> want to
> >> >> achieve.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > The crude
> duplication of
> >> rules where
> >> >> only the
> >> >> >> constant to be matched
> >> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> >> > Product.id varies
> can, most
> >> likely,
> >> >> be
> >> >> >> avoided.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > -W
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > On Sun, Jul 19,
> 2009 at
> >> 3:15 PM,
> >> >> nesta <nesta.fdb(a)163.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I am a newbie
> in
> >> drools. There
> >> >> are a lot
> >> >> >> of simple rules in a
> >> >> >> >> scenario.
> >> >> >> >> >> For example
> >> >> >> >> >> rule 1
> >> >> >> >> >> when
> >> >> >> >> >>
> Product( id
> >> >> >> ==1, usage == 1)
> >> >> >> >> >>
> $decision :
> >> >> >> Decision()
> >> >> >> >> >> then
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> $decision.setValue(1);
> >> >> >> >> >> end
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> rule 2
> >> >> >> >> >> when Product(
> id ==2,
> >> usage ==
> >> >> 1)
> >> >> >> >> >> $decision :
> >> Decision()
> >> >> >> >> >> rule 3
> >> >> >> >> >> when Product(
> id ==3,
> >> usage ==
> >> >> 1)
> >> >> >> >> >> $decision :
> >> Decision()
> >> >> >> >> >> rule 4
> >> >> >> >> >> when Product(
> id ==4,
> >> usage ==
> >> >> 1)
> >> >> >> >> >> $decision :
> >> Decision()
> >> >> >> >> >> rule 5
> >> >> >> >> >> when Product(
> id ==5,
> >> usage ==
> >> >> 1)
> >> >> >> >> >> $decision :
> >> Decision()
> >> >> >> >> >> ......
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I have a
> Product fact
> >> whose id =
> >> >> 5 and
> >> >> >> usage = 1, in my first
> >> >> >> >> thinking,
> >> >> >> >> >> only
> >> >> >> >> >> rule 5 is
> matched,
> >> there should
> >> >> be not
> >> >> >> much more different between 1
> >> >> >> >> rule
> >> >> >> >> >> and a lot of
> rules in
> >> runtime.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> But the result
> shows
> >> that they
> >> >> are
> >> >> >> different. More rules will cost
> >> >> >> >> more
> >> >> >> >> >> time. If there
> are 1
> >> thousand
> >> >> rules, some
> >> >> >> Node and Sink will execute 1
> >> >> >> >> >> thousand
> times.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> My question is
> how to
> >> optimize
> >> >> this
> >> >> >> scenario?
> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> View this
> message in
> >> context:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24...
> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from the
> drools -
> >> user
> >> >> mailing list
> >> >> >> archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >> >> rules-users
> mailing
> >> list
> >> >> >> >> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> >> >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >> > rules-users
> mailing list
> >> >> >> >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> View this message in
> context:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24...
> >> >> >> >> Sent from the drools -
> user
> >> mailing list
> >> >> archive
> >> >> >> at Nabble.com.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >> rules-users mailing
> list
> >> >> >> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >>
> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> > rules-users mailing list
> >> >> >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> View this message in context:
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24...
> >> >> >> Sent from the drools - user
> mailing list
> >> archive
> >> >> at
> >> >> >> Nabble.com.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> rules-users mailing list
> >> >> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> > rules-users mailing list
> >> >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> View this message in context:
> >> >>
> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24...
> >> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list
> archive
> >> at
> >> >> Nabble.com.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> _______________________________________________
> >> >> rules-users mailing list
> >> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> _______________________________________________
> >> > rules-users mailing list
> >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >> http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24...
> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive
> at
> >> Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rules-users mailing list
> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/optimization-on-a-lot-of-simple-rules-tp24556724p24...
> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
16 years, 9 months
